Amazon.com Widgets
  • Better in every way.

    Science has provided everything that makes our lives easier. Such as cars, computers, internet, medicine, to name a few. Has the Bible provided anything close to those? People take so many things for granted that was giving to them by science. People who would say the Bible is better have absolutely no logical way to believe so.

  • Self correcting, encourages objectivity

    No process is perfect, but at least at the core of science is the idea that you don't know everything, and that you need proof to make claims. Embedded in science is the process for updating and refining ideas. Implicit in this is the challenge to try to disprove everything, allowing only the most well supported ideas to percolate to the top.

    In contrast, the bible is a collection of oral pieces from zealots and madmen that contradict themselves and are considered to be unquestionable. To be honest, if the texts were questionable and resulted in thoughtful consideration of the 'true nature of god', then maybe it would be better. But dogmatic clinging to 'the book is flawless and comes from a flawless being' makes the flaws that much more obvious.

    If it were from a perfect being, would it not be written in a perfect way, allowing only a singular interpretation that would end up being the great uniter of people, as opposed to the divisive mish-mash we see...?

  • Science is better than the Bible, and here's a long explanation for why I think that.

    To start with, allow me to say a bit about myself. I am a 15 year old teenage girl who attends a Catholic school. Since I was too young to speak, I attended mass every Sunday, and when I was around 9 I began to altar serve. Every week i have 2 hours of Religious Education centred around the Bible and Catholic beliefs. And I am a firm believer that science is much better.
    The issue I have had with the Bible since I was around 10 is that it is written has slowly lost it's true meaning over time. At the time it was written it could be taken literally, because we didn't know any better. Now we know the earth is much older than the Bible says, because science has given us sound proof, and the creation story is all of a sudden symbolic. Actually, It is just wrong.
    As time goes on, we realise more and more of the Bible cannot be true. As this happens, we realise the Bible was written by men who made the most of the information available to them and tried to form meaning to answer questions we have been asking since the start of time. Then, when we know something is wrong, we insist that science and religion can indeed be compatible. But doesn't this all feel like we are trying too hard? It's like playing dot to dot, only to find some of the dots are in the wrong place, so you draw the line where you see fit. You're not following the book any more, because if you did the picture wouldn't make sense. No, you have to follow reason, otherwise you wont end up with a true picture at all.
    This reason is science. Science isn't always right, but the great thing about it is that when we get it wrong, we recognise that and find something different, that isn't wrong. Slowly science has disproved the Bible. But when does this end? Where is the limit? We have managed to trace back what began life to the first billionth of a second. And yes, we don't know why any of this started. But just because we don't have a logical explanation, that doesn't mean you accept the illogical. It simply means you don't know. The beauty of science is that it can always admit when it doesn't know. It doesn't try to fill that gap with imposibilities. It searches for an answer. The issue I have always had with the Bible is it's inability to just admit that it doesn't know. When it doesn't know, it assumes you can't know, and these are two different things. It's arrogance.
    If we assume that the Bible is more reliable because it may come from God, don't we have to assume that all religious texts are more reliable? That can't be right; most can't exist in harmony. Much better then, that we discover the answers ourselves- then we can be sure.

  • Science is better than god

    Science is supported by a process and has facts behind it. Which would you believe, conclusion made by decades of supporting experiments or an old book some people claim to be written by a god no one can prove to have seen, didn't stop the holocaust, and doesn't help anyone except by giving false hope.

    Religion is false hope. You can't accept our collective smallness so you cling to the only thing that makes it seem like the universe cares about us.

  • Why is it even a question?

    This is like asking ''is E.T better than Mac and Me'', or ''is Star Trek better than Orville'', or ''is Zootopia better than Kemono Friends''.

    The Scientific Method is the best way to know anything, if not the only way. The scientific worldview is based on evidence. The religious worldview is based on anonymous scribblings from the bronze age plus ''I feel it this way''.

  • Think It like This:

    No way.
    Think about it this way:
    What are stars made of? Science says that it's made of plasma and gases and all that scientific stuff-yes it is true.
    But who put them together? Who put all the indgrediants to create our beautiful world? It can't be a coincidence. It can't be coincidental that we just happen to exist. God did. And the bible proves it.
    Some people say that the bible is not logical and does not have much information on what exactly happened all those few million years ago. Well, it's history. Details can be lost in time, and if you think about it, it was certainly a long time ago when the world began.

  • The bible is better than science

    The bible was there over a thousand years ago. It is from God and science is from humans. It would be difficult to to trust a human thinking but God u can fully trust.The bible talked about many things before science found about them. So I say the bible is better than science or the bible is more trustworthy than science.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.